NATIONAL DOG THEFT SURVEY Results Summary August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au [email protected] ABN 75 193 960 564 www.facebook.com/projectpawsaus An Incorporated Not-for-profit Association About Project P.A.W.S Project P.A.W.S is an incorporated not-for-profit animal welfare organisation based in Brisbane, Queens- land Australia. The organisation was established in 2015 with a focus on public policy, advocacy, welfare and safety pertaining to both companion and non-companion animals as sentient beings. Project P.A.W.S maintains a social media presence through its Facebook page which is the primary tool in which the or- ganisation interacts with the public and its supporters. It also uses other social media platforms to engage with government, business and the community. The survey and this report was prepared by Dr. Stephen Thornton, social economist, with the assistance of psychologist Samantha King.
Contact details Facebook: www.facebook.com/projectpawsaus Website: www.projectpaws.org.au Email: [email protected] ABN: 75 193 960 564
Disclaimer This report has been prepared for the purposes of providing the results of a survey conducted by Project P.A.W.S and is distributed for general information purposes only. The report in no way is produced to provide specific ad- vice to any individual or Corporation as all circumstances are different and may require different solutions.
Project P.A.W.S accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered howsoever arising to any person or Cor- poration who may use or rely on this report in contravention of the terms of this clause. Project P.A.W.S supports
facebook.com/RSPCAQueensland
f a c e b o o k . c o m / O s c a r s L a w A U S facebook.com/AnimalsAustralia facebook.com/BarristersAnimalWelfarePanel
Note: these organisations were not Our supporters involved in formulating the survey or in the preparation of this report
facebook.com/IgniteDigitalMarketing
Summary
Australia has one of the highest rates of dog ownership in the world. There is no doubt Australians love their dogs. Recent research shows that 38 per cent of the population live in a household with a canine with Tasmania having the highest dog ownership (44%) followed by WA (42%), SA (41%), Queensland (39%), Victoria (38%) and NSW (including the ACT) (35%)1.
Not surprisingly, most dog owners view their pet as a close member of the family and the thought of having their dog stolen is of great concern. Dog theft is one of those issues that from time to time make a headline in the local news, mostly when it is a good news story when a stolen dog has been found and returned to its owner. However dog theft often goes unreported by owners who do not understand the theft of their dog is a crime. Even when they do report it, too many times authorities do not take it seriously.
Dog theft occurs for many reasons. The main reasons are thought to be to on-sell and to breed from. In regard to on-selling, the right dog, often a pure bred, can fetch many hundreds of dollars and in some cases over $1000. Dog thieves have been known to use trade and sell websites to on-sell a dog. In terms of breeding, pure bred dogs that are not desexed are particular targets however mixed breed dogs can be profitable to breed from too as often very young puppies can be passed off as pure bred to unsuspecting and novice buyers.
Dogs may also be stolen for dog fighting. Unlike in the United States where authorities and the ASPCA (our RSPCA equivalent) make regular and often large scale dog fighting ring busts, Australia does not have the same culture of this so called “sport”. There have been very few confirmed reports of organised dog fighting events in this country. Nevertheless, dog fighting is likely to occur in small numbers which is still to be uncovered. Like the recent revelations in the greyhound industry in regard to live baiting, the “whispers” of this unlawful activity occurring may sometimes have substance.
Finally, while not “active” dog theft, people who find a dog that may have escaped the yard and do not to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner also engage in a form of dog theft. People have an obligation to use their best efforts to find the lawful owner of a found dog e.g. taking the dog to a vet to check for a microchip, contacting the pound, and putting up posters / door knocking the local area.
This Results Summary provides the findings of an online survey conducted from October 2013 to January 2014 to better understand the perceptions and incidence of dog theft in Australia and what precautions dog owners take to reduce the risk of their much loved pet being stolen. The survey included a focus on the financial and psychological impacts of dog theft on individuals as well the impacts on the economy in regard to lost productivity at work. The results of the survey have
1 Roy Morgan Research (2015) “Doggone it: Pet ownership in Australia” Available http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6272-pet-ownership-in-australia-2015 Accessed 5 June 2015
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 1
important implications for policy and law makers. In the UK, for example, the issue of dog theft as a significant criminal activity has been raised by MPs and the Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare who have called for more action to be taken to reduce the incidence of pet theft2.
1,219 dog owners from all states and territories of Australia completed the survey via social media, with nearly 80 per cent residing in Queensland due to it being promoted on the Queenslanders Against Dog Theft & Fighting Rings (QADTFR) Facebook page, which at the time of the survey had approximately 10,000 “likes”. Survey participants were largely recruited through this page where a SurveyMonkey link was posted as well as on the Facebook pages of other like-minded animal welfare organisations e.g. Oscar’s Law in Victoria. The methodology is detailed in Appendix A.
While the survey results should be considered with some caution given the “snowball” sampling method used (non random sampling) and the use of a dedicated dog theft Facebook page as the primary survey recruitment tool, both of which are likely to introduce a degree of bias, they nevertheless reveal some interesting findings which may form the basis for further research into particular aspects of dog ownership and dog theft. These will be of use to local councils in regard to things like microchipping, council registration and the securing of yard practices and for state governments in regard to criminal penalties for dog theft and the response of police services when the suspected theft of a dog is reported.
Key Results
The responses from survey respondents show that:
85 per cent of dog owners consider their dog/s to be as close to them as the people they love most in their life.
More people owned two dogs (45.4%) than just the one dog (43.7%).
The 10 most popular breeds were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (347), American Staffordshire Terrier (118), Labrador Retriever (85), Border Collie (74), Maltese (73), German Shepherd Dog (71), Australian Cattle Dog (67), Bull Terrier (63), Australian Kelpie (55), Rottweiler (55).
89.8 per cent of dogs were microchipped; 80.6 per cent were desexed; 83.6 per cent were registered with the local council however only 59.1 per cent of dogs wore the council identification tag. 64.1 per cent wore a tag on the dog collar with a current phone number.
2 BBC News (2013) “Dog theft needs government action, says parliamentary group” 22 December 2013. Accessed 9 May 2015. Available http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25455415
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 2
One in 12 dog owners have had a dog suspected stolen/kept by someone with 60 owners experiencing evidence of forced entry and 33 witnessing their dog being taken.
Four of every ten owners reported their suspected stolen dog to police. 18 per cent found police to be helpful and took the report seriously however 50 per cent of reports were only taken somewhat seriously and/or the police were only somewhat helpful. Almost one-third of respondents (32%) reported that police were not interested and there was nothing they could do.
The vast majority of owners (98.1%) reported that they felt quite/very distressed when their dog was suspected stolen.
Eight of every 10 people (83.4%) reported that their concentration at work was extremely/very affected when their dog was suspected stolen, likely resulting in poorer work performance and lower productivity.
Around two-thirds of dog owners spent extra money securing their yard against dog theft. 101 owners had spent money finding their dog ranging from $20 to many thousands of dollars with one owner spending an estimated $10,000 to find their dog.
128 dog owners took between 4 hours to over three days off work to find their suspected stolen dog.
Just under half of 1173 respondents thought that police took dog theft seriously or at least somewhat seriously (45.1%) while the proportion of respondents that believed government and the courts took the issue seriously was significantly lower being 18.6 per cent and 24.3 per cent respectively.
95 per cent of dog owners believe it is important for government and police to use resources to reduce the incidence of dog theft.
Around two-thirds of dog owners are “swinging” voters (67.8%) and around nine of every ten respondents (90.4%) indicated that they would be likely/very likely to support a political party or politician that took dog theft seriously.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 3
2 June 2015 10 June 2015
26 May 2015 18 June 2015
Brazen attempted dog theft
10 July 2013 23 July 2015
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 4
Table of Contents
Summary ...... 1 Section 1 Respondent..... Demographics ...... 7 1.1 Age of respondents ...... 8 1.2 Gender ...... 8 1.3 State / territory ...... 9 1.4 Local Government Areas (LGAs) ...... 10 1.5 Type of dwelling and rent/own ...... 11 Section 2 The Dogs ...... 12 2.1 Number of dogs owned ...... 13 2.2 Age of dogs ...... 13 2.3 Dog gender ...... 14 2.4 Dog breeds ...... 15 Section 3 You and Your Dog ...... 16 3.1 Main reasons for owning a dog ...... 17 3.2 Closeness to dogs ...... 17 Section 4 Dog Theft Protection Measures ...... 18 4.1 Microchipping ...... 19 4.2 Desexing ...... 19 4.3 Council registered/ID tag ...... 19 ...... 4.4 Phone number on collar ...... 19 4.5 Other identification devices ...... 19 4.6 Money spent securing yard ...... 20 Section 5 Perceptions, Experiences and Impacts of Dog Theft ...... 21 5.1 Perceptions of the prevalence of dog theft ...... 22 5.2 Experiences of dog theft ...... 22 5.3 Psychological and financial impacts ...... 24 Section 6 Governments, The Courts and Police ...... 27 6.1 How seriously governments, police and the courts take dog theft ...... 28 6.2 The importance of governments and police to use resources to reduce dog theft ...... 28 6.3 Political views of dog owners and support for political parties/politicians that take dog theft seriously ...... 29 Appendix ...... 30
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 5
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Top 25 LGAs represented ...... 10 Table 2 Closeness of Respondents to Their Dogs ...... 17 Table 3 Summary of Dog Theft Protection Measures ...... 20
Figure 1 Respondents by age group ...... 8 Figure 2 Proportion of male and female respondents ...... 9 Figure 3 Proportion of respondents by state & territory ...... 9 Figure 4 Dwelling type in which respondents reside ...... 11 Figure 5 Proportion of respondents who own / rent place of residence ...... 11 Figure 6 Number of dogs owned by respondents ...... 13 Figure 7 Number of dogs owned by age ...... 14 Figure 8 Dog gender ...... 14 Figure 9 Proportion of dogs mixed / pure breed ...... 15 Figure 10 Reasons for owning a dog ...... 17 Figure 11 Perceptions of prevalence of dog theft ...... 22 Figure 12 Respondents who have experienced suspected dog theft ...... 22 Figure 13 Reasons for believing dog has been stolen ...... 23 Figure 14 Report to police ...... 23 Figure 15 Psychological impact on owners when dog stolen or kept ...... 24 Figure 16 Concentration at work when dog stolen or kept ...... 24 Figure 17 Money spent securing yard against dog theft ...... 25 Figure 18 Time taken off work to look for suspected stolen dog ...... 26 Figure 19 Degree to which governments, police & courts believed to take dog theft seriously ...... 28 Figure 20 Importance of governments and police to use resources to reduce dog theft ..... 29
Figure 21 Voting behaviour of respondents ...... 29
Figure 22 Support for party/politician who takes dog theft seriously ...... 29
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 6
Section 1
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
In this first section we aimed to understand a little about the respondents (people) who completed the survey. We look at what ages respondents were, their gender, the state or territory and the Local Government Area (council) in which they live, the type of dwelling in which they reside and whether they own or rent their dwelling.
In summary, we found:
the highest proportion (%) of respondents were aged 26 to 35 years followed by people aged 36 to 45.
the vast majority were female comprising around nine of every ten respondents.
around 80 per cent of respondents resided in Queensland although with one in every five respondents being from other states and territories it meant there was good input from across Australia.
most respondents lived in Southeast Queensland with most dog owners completing the survey living in Brisbane City Council; Gold Coast City Council; Moreton Bay Regional Council (on the Sunshine Coast) and Logan City Council (adjoining Brisbane City Council to the south).
the vast majority (93.2%) live in a house as opposed to a unit, townhouse or acreage.
nearly two-thirds of people owned their dwelling with just over one-third renting.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 7
1.1 Age of respondents
The survey asked respondents to indicate in which of seven age brackets they fitted. Of the 1219 survey participants, 99.4 per cent indicated their age. As shown in Figure 1, the highest proportion of respondents were aged 26 to 35 years of age comprising one-third of respondents (33.4%) followed by people aged 36 to 45 who represented around one-quarter (24.7%) of respondents.
Seven participants did not indicate their age.
While it might be expected that the 18 to 25 age group would have been one of the highest represented in the survey given they are known to use social media more than older age groups, the nature of dog ownership means that there is often a cost burden associated with this type of companion animal which those on lower starting salary/wage incomes may find more prohibitive. Also, dog ownership is not as conducive to the itinerant lifestyle of younger people who often move frequently in rental situations.
405 (33.4%) 299 (24.7%) 214 188 (17.7%) (15.5%)
80 (6.6%) 8 18 (0.7%) (1.5%) 7
<18 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 56 - 65 >65 not given
Figure 1: Respondents by age group (n = 1212)
1.2 Gender
Survey respondents were asked to nominate their gender with 1,212 responses being received. The vast majority were female comprising around nine of every ten participants (91.0%) with male respondents being in the minority (9.0%). Seven respondents did not indicate their gender.
The results reflect the gender imbalance of “likers” on the QADTFR Facebook page, although likers also shared the survey on Facebook and survey administrators posted on other Facebook pages, for example, Oscar’s Law, a Victorian based anti-puppy farm organisation with around 100,000 likers.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 8
9.0% (109)
Female Male
91.0% (1103)
Figure 2: Proportion of male and female respondents (n = 1212)
1.3 State/territory
Respondents were asked to nominate the state or territory in which they reside. Not surprisingly, as the QADTFR Facebook page is largely Queensland focused, four of every five respondents (79.4%) resided in Queensland. However a good response was also received from other states and territories comprising one in five survey responses.
VIC 7.1% WA 2.8% (34) ACT 0.4% (5) (87) NT 0.2% (2)
TAS 0.2% NSW 7.3% (2) (89) SA 2.6% (32)
QLD 79.4% (968)
Figure 3: Proportion of respondents by state & territory (n = 1219)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 9
1.4 Local government areas (LGAs)
1205 participants indicated in which Local Government Area (LGA) they live. LGAs are commonly referred to as local councils. In all, 162 LGAs were represented of 565 local governing bodies across Australia.3 The top 25 LGAs were mostly located in Queensland.
Table 1 shows the top 25 LGAs. The complete list is provided in Appendix B.
Table 1: Top 25 LGAs represented Brisbane City Council (QLD) 241 Gold Coast City Council (QLD) 164 Moreton Bay Regional Council (QLD) 146 Logan City Council (QLD) 104 Sunshine Coast Regional Council (QLD) 50 Ipswich City Council (QLD) 49 Redland City Council (QLD) 49 Cairns Regional Council (QLD) 23 Toowoomba Regional Council (QLD) 22 Fraser Coast Regional Council (QLD) 19 Lockyer Valley Regional Council (QLD) 10 Townsville City Council (QLD) 10 Mackay Regional Council (QLD) 9 Rockhampton Regional Council (QLD) 9 Whitsunday Regional Council (QLD) 8 Bundaberg Regional Council (QLD) 7 Casey City Council (VIC) 7 Gladstone Regional Council (QLD) 7 Hume City Council (VIC) 7 Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (VIC) 7 Tweed Shire Council (NSW) 7 Somerset Regional Council (QLD) 6 Tablelands Regional Council (QLD) 6 ACT (Canberra) 5 Blacktown City Council (NSW) 5
3 Australian Government 2014 Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, “Local Government” http://www.regional.gov.au/local/. Accessed 27 May 2014
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 10
1.5 Type of dwelling & rent/own
Respondents were asked to nominate the type of dwelling in which they resided. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of respondents nominated “house” as their place of residence (93.2%).
3.1 per cent of respondents indicated that they reside in a unit/apartment/duplex followed by owners residing in a townhouse as the third most popular dwelling type (2.5%). Around one in every 100 respondents (1.2%) indicated they live on a farm or acreage.
Nearly two-thirds (62.4%) of 1209 respondents indicated they owned or co-owned their dwelling while just over one-third of respondents indicated they rent (37.6%). Ten survey participants did not provide an answer to this question.
1.2% (15) Farm/Acreage
2.5% (30) Townhouse
3.1% (37) Unit/Apt/Dplx
93.2% (1130) House
Figure 4: Dwelling type in which respondents reside (n = 1219)
37.6% (454) Own 62.4% Rent (755)
Figure 5: Proportion of respondents who own / rent place of residence (n = 1209)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 11
Section 2
THE DOGS
In this section we provide the findings of some of the details of the dogs that respondents own. We asked respondents to tell us how many dogs they own, the age of their dogs, their gender, breed, and whether they are pure bred or a mixed breed.
Some of the results were surprising while others were more predictable.
In summary, we found:
more people owned two dogs than one dog.
the most popular breed owned was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier followed by the American Staffordshire Terrier, with the Labrador Retriever the third most popular
there was a near 50/50 split between male dogs and female dogs
approximately two-thirds of people owned dogs 5 years of age or younger
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 12
2.1 Number of dogs owned
Owning a dog for many people is a big step. Taking on the responsibility of owning a dog often means devoting some of your time to ensuring your dog is adequately exercised so that they are in good physical condition, socialised to ensure they respond well when around other dogs, and of course stimulated so they do not engage in destructive behaviours in and around the home.
Owning a dog also is a financial commitment with food, bedding, play toys, dog collars, council registration, and veterinary bills a few of the major costs, besides of course the initial cost of purchasing your new friend. These costs can add up to at least $2000 a year per dog.
A surprising result was the number of dogs owned. The majority of respondents owned two dogs (45.4%) instead of just the one (43.7%).
Eleven respondents owned more than five dogs (0.9%); eight owned five dogs (0.7%); 23 respondents owned four dogs (1.9%) while 91 respondents owned three dogs (7.5%).
> 5 dogs 0.9% (11)
5 dogs 0.7% (8)
4 dogs 1.9% (23)
3 dogs 7.5% (91)
2 dogs 45.4% (553)
1 dog 43.7% (533)
0 200 400 600
Figure 6: Number of dogs owned by respondents (n = 1219)
2.2 Age of dogs
Most dogs typically live 10 to 15 years, depending on breed. The results of the 2063 dogs’ ages are shown in Figure 7.
The majority of dogs owned by respondents are 2 years of age (307; 14.9%) with approximately two- thirds of dogs owned being aged 5 years and younger (67.4%).
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 13
307
264
229
198 201 192
115 111 103 … 81 77
51 51 … … 30 29 24
… 0-<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15+
Age of dogs
Figure 7: Number of dogs owned by age (n = 2063)
2.3 Dog gender
Many animals, like humans, have a near 50/50 gender split. Given the nature of the sample for this survey (non random) we were surprised that the gender split of the 2062 dogs that were identified in this question was almost exactly 50/50.
Female dogs comprised 49.6 per cent of the sample (1022 dogs) while there were only 18 more male dogs than female dogs numbering 1040 (50.4%) as shown in Figure 8.
49.6% Male 50.4% (1022) (1040) Female
Figure 8: Dog gender (n = 2062)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 14
2.4 Dog breeds
Survey respondents identified 2024 dogs by their breed and 2060 dogs by whether they identified their dog as a pure bred or mixed breed. The survey had quite a comprehensive list of dog breeds respondents could “click” on however some respondents chose to click the “other” box to identify their mixed breed. As such, we have taken the first breed mentioned in the “cross”, for example:
“American Staffy/English Staffy” - we treated as an American Staffordshire Terrier “LabXkelpieXboardercollieXstaffie” - we treated as a Labrador Retriever “Cattle x staffy” – we treated as an Australian Cattle Dog
The full list of breeds is provided in Appendix C, however the Top 10 most popular breeds were:
Staffordshire Bull Terrier – 347 American Staffordshire Terrier – 118 Labrador Retriever – 85 Border Collie – 74 Maltese – 73 German Shepherd Dog – 71 Australian Cattle Dog – 67 Bull Terrier – 63 Australian Kelpie – 55 Rottweiler - 55
Figure 9 shows that pure bred dogs (56.3%) were slightly more popular than mixed breed dogs (43.7%) of a total of 2060 dogs where respondents completed this survey question.
43.7% (901) Pure 56.3% (1159) Mixed
Figure 9: Proportion of dogs mixed / pure breed (n = 2060)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 15
Section 3
YOU AND YOUR DOG
In Section 3 we report the findings of two questions we asked survey respondents around what the main reasons are for owning a dog and what their dog means to them.
In summary, we found:
94.7 per cent of owners indicated that companionship is the number one reason for owning a dog, followed by security e.g. watch dog or guard dog (4.3%), and for working dog use (1.0%).
the vast majority of respondents consider their dog/s to be a significant part of the family with 85 per cent of people indicating that their dog is as close to them as the people they love most in their life.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 16
3.1 Main reasons for owning a dog
Figure 10 shows that 94.7 per cent of survey respondents indicated that companionship is the number one reason for owning a dog, followed by security e.g. watch dog or guard dog (52; 4.3%), and for working dog use 12 (1.0%).
A small minority of respondents (18) did not indicate one of the three main reasons indicated in the survey question and instead only indicated “other” and gave their response. These have been allocated to one of the three categories based on best fit e.g. “they are family” allocated to companionship; “rescue dog” to companionship.
1.0% Working dog
4.3% For security
94.7% Companionship
Figure 10: Reasons for owning a dog (n = 1209)
3.2 Closeness to dogs
Respondents were asked to rate how close they feel to their dog/s on a scale of 1 to 10 where a rating of 1 is “not very close” and a rating of 10 is “as close as the people I love most in my life”. As Table 2 below shows, the vast majority of respondents consider their dog/s to be a significant part of the family with 85 per cent of people indicating that their dog is as close to them as the people they love most in their life.
Table 2: Closeness of Respondents to Their Dogs (n = 1212)
Not very As close as the people close I love most in my life Total Av. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9.77
0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0% 0.3% 1.2% 4.3% 9.2% 85.0% 100%
(0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (3) (14) (52) (112) (1030) 1212
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 17
Section 4
DOG THEFT PROTECTION MEASURES
Section 4 explores the measures that dog owners take to help protect against dog theft and also in circumstances when their dog may escape the yard.
Some of these measures are required by law in many jurisdictions in Australia e.g. microchipping puppies, while others are simply good dog safety practices.
In summary, we found:
89.8 per cent of dogs were microchipped
80.6 per cent were desexed
83.6 per cent were registered with the local council however only 59.1 per cent of dogs wore the council identification tag
64.1 per cent wore a tag on the dog collar with a current phone number.
A small proportion of owners used other identification and dog theft devices
Around two-thirds of dog owners had spent extra money securing their yard against dog theft
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 18
4.1 Microchipping
Microchipping has become a normal practice in recent decades with many jurisdictions requiring dogs to be microchipped. Queensland is one such jurisdiction with a few exceptions. Of the 2056 dogs where owners indicated their dog’s microchip status, nine of every ten dogs were microchipped (1847; 89.8%).
4.2 Desexing
Desexing a dog can reduce the risk of theft of the dog for breeding purposes. Of 2062 dogs, approximately eight of every ten dogs (80.6%) were de-sexed. This meant that of the sample, 401 dogs (19.4%) or around one in every five dogs were not de-sexed.
4.3 Council registered/ID tag
Owners indicated that of 2056 dogs, 1718 dogs were registered with the local council (83.6%) however only six out of every 10 dogs wore the council identification tag (1216; 59.1%).
4.4 Phone number on collar
Owners indicated that of 2056 dogs, 1318 (64.1%) wore a tag on the dog collar with a current phone number.
4.5 Other identification devices
A small number of owners indicated that they use other or additional identification measures to the council ID tag and phone number on their dog’s collar. These included:
RSPCA VIP tag - a coloured plastic tag with an individual ID number and a 24 hour hotline http://www.rspcaqld.org.au/what-we-do/lost-animals/identify-pet . GPS locator – e.g. Petrek National Pet Registry tag - https://www.petregister.com.au/tags Furcode – www.furcode.com Tag’d – pet tags with digital chips that can be scanned with many smart phones www.tagd.com.au Ear tattoo Embroidered collar
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 19
4.6 Money spent securing yard
Having a secure yard is essential, especially in built up areas like in towns and suburbs where there are often fines for dogs roaming the streets unrestrained. Often this requires adequate fencing only. However these days it is not uncommon for dog owners to have spent significant amounts of money on “fortressing” their property against dog theft.
Approximately two-thirds of respondents (65.3%) indicated that they have spent money securing their yard against dog theft. Amounts ranged from under $100 for padlocks and chains to many thousands of dollars for fencing and security systems.
Table 3 provides a summary of dog theft protection measures taken by owners.
Table 3: Summary of Dog Theft Protection Measures
YES NO
Desexed 80.6% 19.4%
Microchipped 89.8% 10.2%
Council registered 83.6% 16.4%
Council ID tag 59.1% 40.9%
Current phone number on collar 64.1% 35.9%
Other ID devices 16.4% 83.6%
Securing yard (money) 65.3% 34.7%
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 20
Section 5
PERCEPTIONS, EXPERIENCES & IMPACTS OF DOG THEFT
This section explores the perceptions and experiences of dog theft and how dog theft impacts on people both psychologically and financially as well as the economic impact of dog theft to the economy in terms of lost productivity in the workplace. In summary, we found:
Almost half of respondents (49.2%) believed that dog theft was occurring in their area on a regular basis. One in 12 respondents have had a dog suspected stolen/kept by someone with 60 respondents experiencing evidence of forced entry and 33 witnessing their dog being taken. Around four of every ten people reported their dog suspected stolen to police. Approximately one in five respondents (18.0%) reported that police were helpful and took the report seriously with 50 per cent of reports only taken somewhat seriously and/or the police were somewhat helpful. Almost one-third of respondents (32.0%) reported that police were not at all interested and said there was nothing they could do. The vast majority (98.1%) reported that they either felt quite distressed or very distressed when their dog was suspected stolen. Eight of every 10 people (83.4%) reported that their concentration at work was extremely/very affected when their dog was suspected stolen thereby likely resulting in poorer work performance and lower productivity. Around two-thirds of dog owners had spent extra money securing their yard against dog theft, 101 respondents had spent money finding their dog ranging from $20 to many thousands of dollars with one respondent spending an estimated $10,000 to find their dog. 128 respondents took between 4 hours to over three days off work to find their suspected stolen dog.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 21
5.1 Perceptions of the prevalence of dog theft
Respondents were asked to nominate on a Likert scale how frequently they believed dog theft was occurring in their area, from “very often” to “not at all”. 1197 people completed this question.
The results in Figure 11 show that half of respondents (49.6%) believe that dog theft was occurring in their area on a regular basis very often / often and that fewer than one in five respondents (17.3%) believed it was occurring on an infrequent basis or not at all. The remaining one-third of respondents indicated they did not know how often dog theft was occurring in their area (33.1%).
35.4% 33.1%
14.2% 15.7% 1.6%
Very often Often I don't know Not often Not at all
Figure 11: Perceptions of prevalence of dog theft (n = 1197)
5.2 Experiences of dog theft
Respondents were also asked if they had ever had a dog go missing where they felt it might have been stolen or kept by someone and not returned. 222 of 1196 respondents (18.6%) respondents said that they had a dog suspected stolen/kept by someone (see Figure 12).
18.6%
Yes
81.4% No
Figure 12: Respondents who have experienced suspected dog theft (n = 1196)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 22
Of the 222 people who believed their dog had been stolen/kept, 198 provided the reason why they believed their dog had been stolen and had not simply gone missing by, for example, escaping the yard on its own accord. Nearly half of the 198 respondents indicated that their secured property had evidence of forced entry or someone had witnessed the dog being taken (see Figure 13).
Of the 40.9 per cent who indicated ‘other’, a number of these provided a response as directed by the survey question that included “caught someone in the act”; “video camera”; “left a threatening letter”, “taken by x partner”, while other responses indicated that the dog had indeed not been stolen but had left the yard by its own means.
After analysing the responses, at least 100 owners seem to have credible evidence that their dog was stolen being approximately one in every 12 survey respondents.
Yard securely fenced & 30.3% (60) evidence of forced entry
16.7% (33) Dog witnessed being taken
21.2% (42) Yard not securely fenced but out of character for dog to roam 40.9% (81) Other
Figure 13: Reasons for believing dog has been stolen (n = 198)
Around four of every ten people reported their dog suspected stolen to police. As Figure 14 shows, of these, approximately one in five respondents (18.0%) reported that police were helpful and took the report seriously. However 50 per cent of reports were only taken somewhat seriously and/or the police were somewhat helpful while almost one-third of respondents (32.0%) reported that police were not at all interested and said there was nothing they could do.
32% Not interested nothing they could do 30% Not interested but took details 20% Good but not taken seriously 18% Helpful & took seriously
Figure 14: Report to police (n = 90)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 23
5.3 Psychological and financial impacts
5.3.1 Psychological impacts
Having a dog suspected of being stolen can be an emotional time for dog owners. We asked survey participants who had experienced their dog being suspected as stolen what the psychological impact on them was.
Using a Likert scale, people were asked to indicate whether the suspected theft of their dog made them feel “not distressed at all”, “not distressed very much”, “somewhat distressed”, “quite distressed” or “very distressed”. Figure 15 shows that of 212 respondents, the vast majority (98.1%) reported that they either felt quite distressed or very distressed when their dog was suspected as being taken. It should be noted that approximately half of these responses were from suspected dog theft where we could not establish the veracity of the claim the dog had been stolen.
Not at all distressed 0.5% (1)
Not distressed very 0% (0) much Somewhat 1.4% (3) distressed
Quite distressed 12.7% (27)
Very distressed 85.4% (181)
Figure 15: Psychological impact on owners when dog stolen or kept (n = 212)
We also asked respondents how their concentration at work was affected, if at all. Figure 16 shows that eight of every 10 people (83.4%) reported that their concentration at work was extremely/very affected thereby likely resulting in poorer work performance and lower productivity.
56.90% Extremely affected
26.50% Very affected
12.80% Somewhat affected
3.90% Not at all
Figure 16: Concentration at work when dog stolen or kept (n = 204)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 24
5.3.2 Financial impacts
As reported in Section 4.6, dog owners sometimes spend considerable amounts of money to secure their yard against dog theft ranging from $20 to many thousands of dollars.
Of 1199 people who answered this question, 783 (65.3%) people answered “yes” they had spent money securing their yard against dog theft with approximately one-third (416;34.7%) not doing so (see Figure 17).
No
34.7%
Yes 65.3%
Figure 17: Money spent securing yard against dog theft (n = 1199)
We also asked whether people had spent money on finding a suspected stolen dog. There were 101 respondents who had spent money finding their dog. One respondent had spent an estimated $10,000 to find their suspected stolen dog.
The types of expense items included:
Flyers Advertising Reward money Pet detective services RSPCA fee for searching for missing pet Motor vehicle fuel driving around searching Legal fees (1 owner) Paying businesses to display poster
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 25
We also asked owners who had a dog suspected of being stolen if they took any time off from work to search for their dog.
Figure 18 shows that 128 owners indicated they had taken time off work with 38 owners taking 1 to 4 hours off, 30 owners taking 4 to 8 hours, 24 owners taking 2 to 3 days and 36 owners taking more than three days off work.
No 39.3% (83)
Yes - 1 to 4 hours 18% (38)
Yes - 4 to 8 hours 14.2% (30)
Yes - 2 to 3 days 11.4% (24)
Yes - more than 3 days 17.1% (36)
Figure 18: Time taken off work to look for suspected stolen dog
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 26
Section 6
GOVERNMENT, THE COURTS AND
POLICE
In this final section, we wanted to gain a better understanding of how dog owners viewed government, the courts and police in respect to efforts to combat dog theft which is a property crime. We asked respondents how seriously they thought each of the three institutions took dog theft and the importance of government and police to devote sufficient resources to combat dog theft.
We also asked them their political views and how likely they would be to support a political party or politician that took dog theft seriously.
In summary, we found:
Just under half of 1173 respondents thought that police took dog theft seriously or at least somewhat seriously (45.1%) while the proportion of respondents that believed government and the courts took the issue seriously was significantly lower being 18.6 per cent and 24.3 per cent respectively. 95 per cent of survey respondents believe it is important for government and police to use resources to reduce the incidence of dog theft Around two-thirds of respondents are “swinging” voters (67.8%) and around nine of every ten respondents (90.4%) indicated that they would be likely/very likely to support a political party or politician that took dog theft seriously.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 27
6.1 How seriously governments, police and the courts take dog theft
In this first question we asked dog owners how seriously they believed governments (all levels), police (in their state) and courts took the crime of dog theft. Respondents had a choice of three answers “take it seriously”, “somewhat take it seriously” and “don’t take it seriously”.
Figure 19 shows that all three institutions have some work to do to increase the perceptions of dog owners that they take dog theft seriously. Just under half of 1173 respondents thought that police took dog theft seriously or at least somewhat seriously (45.1%) while the proportion of respondents that believed government and the courts took the issue seriously was significantly lower being 18.6 per cent and 24.3 per cent respectively.
6.8% Governments 11.8% 81.4%
8.4% Take it seriously Police 36.7% Somewhat take it seriously 54.8% Don't take it seriously
7.5% The Courts 16.8% 75.7%
Figure 19: Degree to which governments, police & courts believed to take dog theft seriously (governments n = 1191; police n = 1173; the courts n = 1174)
6.2 The importance of governments and police to use
resources to reduce dog theft
We asked respondents in this question to tell us how important they thought it was for governments (state and local) and state police to use their considerable resources to reduce the incidence of dog theft. Unsurprisingly, the results show that 95 per cent of survey respondents believe it is important/very important for government and police to use resources to reduce the incidence of dog theft (see Figure 20).
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 28
Not important Not very 1.8% important 3.2%
Important
17.1%
Very important
77.9%
Figure 20: Importance of governments and police to use resources to reduce dog theft (n = 1196)
6.3 Political views of dog owners and support for political parties/politicians that take dog theft seriously
Finally, we asked survey participants two questions to determine how seriously politicians should take the issue of dog theft in the community. First, of 1173 respondents, Figure 21 shows that around two- thirds are “swinging” voters (67.8%) meaning that they are comfortable with changing their vote from election to election depending on the issues that mean most to them. Second, Figure 22 shows around nine of every ten respondents (90.4%) indicate that they would be likely/very likely to support a political party or politician that took dog theft seriously.
Not likely Some Vote what 1.0% same likely way 32.2% 8.6% Likely Very 27.2% likely
63.2% Swinging voter 67.8%
Figure 21: Voting behaviour of respondents Figure 22: Support for party/politician who takes (n = 1173) dog theft seriously (n = 1192)
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 29
Appendix A
Methodology
A draft survey using SurveyMonkey was designed and piloted to test for validity and reliability and to ensure as best as possible that the questions were able to be understood by a wide range of participants. The survey went live on 18 October 2013 and closed on 31 January 2014, being open for approximately 3.5 months. The time period for the survey was to “near exhaustion” where responses to the survey were only “trickling in”.
The survey link was posted a number of times on the QADTFR Facebook (FB) page and periodically on other FB pages including in the public posts section (i.e. not posted by the FB page). We were able to achieve a few FB pages agreeing to post onto their main page, and we especially thank Oscar’s Law in this regard who had approximately 100,000 likers at that time.
The survey link was also put on the QADTFR website. The FB page had 1506 people respond and the website yielded 18 responses. This is not a surprising result as we actively promoted the FB page survey link and not the website link. The collection setting on SurveyMonkey was set so that only one survey completion from an individual computer could be made. The setting was also set so that the IP addresses of survey participants were not collected.
The survey contained only a couple of compulsory question being “Council area” of respondent to understand geographical (and political) differences and questions regarding information on microchipping, council registration, etc. Respondents that did not complete at least to, and including, Question 10 were deleted from the sample. The data was “cleaned” by clarifying questions of the survey where respondents were required to input a response which needed to be categorised better for statistical purposes.
1524 people responded to the survey, that is, people who started the survey and completed the two screening questions, which were:
Q1. Do you own a dog or dogs? [Yes = 1511 (99.15%); No = 13 (0.85%)]
Q2. Do you live in Australia? [Yes = 1497 (99.87%); No = 2 (0.13%))
Respondents then to varying degrees answered the following 7 questions which asked for demographic information until Question 9 which was a compulsory set of questions with dropbox answers. Question 9 asked questions about the respondents’ dog/s.
Those who did not complete this question, and therefore subsequent questions, were excluded from the results. A total of 1219 respondents’ answers have been analysed in the Results Summary.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 30
Appendix B
Local government areas (LGAs) of respondents
Survey participants were required to input their local government area (Council) or if they did not know this could input their town or postcode. Where a town, suburb or postcode was input we looked up via the internet in which LGA they resided. In these instances some suburbs and postcodes straddled two adjoining LGAs and as the survey deliberately did not collect street addresses a decision was made to randomly assign one of these LGAs as the respondent’s local council authority.
135 respondents identified their postcode. As an example, one respondent input the postcode 2154 in lieu of nominating their LGA. The postcode 2154 is Castle Hill, a suburb of Sydney. Part of the suburb is located in The Hills Shire Council and part of the suburb is located in Hornsby Shire Council. Other examples are postcode 4285 which is common to both Bromelton in Scenic Rim Regional Council and the outer suburb of Kerry which lies in the Gold Coast City Council LGA and postcode 4157 which is common to both Capalaba (Redland City Council) and Capalaba West (Brisbane City Council). These also were randomly assigned.
Other respondents identified a town or city. Where people nominated “Brisbane”, “Gold Coast”, “Ipswich” for example, these have been assigned as Brisbane City Council, Gold Coast City Council, Ipswich City Council.
It is noted that four Queensland councils were de-amalgamated from 1 January 2014 being Noosa Shire Council from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, the Shire of Livingstone from Rockhampton Regional Council, Douglas Shire Council from Cairns Regional Council and Mareeba Shire Council from Tablelands Regional Council. For the purposes of this survey, as the four newly created councils were formed toward the end of the survey period, respondents’ nomination of these four newly created LGAs have been adjusted to reflect the previous amalgamated regional councils for purposes of consistency.
In other cases, e.g. where a respondent put down “Burnett Shire” and there is a North Burnett Regional Council and a South Burnett Regional Council, the first one that came up on the Google search was used (in this case North Burnett Regional Council).
Twelve respondents failed to nominate their LGA (Queensland (6); Victoria (4); South Australia (1) and Western Australia (1). It is noted that a response was received from Queensland and Tasmania that was unable to be interpreted as to the LGA and therefore their Council nomination was deleted for that question however the rest of the responses remain.In the Australian Capital Territory, the responsibilities usually handled by local government are administered by a department of the territory government. This resulted in a sample size n=1219.
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 31
Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Respondents
Alphabetical order Highest number to lowest number Council No. Council No. ACT (Canberra) 5 Brisbane City Council (QLD) 241 Adelaide Hills Council (SA) 1 Gold Coast City Council (QLD) 164 Alice Springs Town Council (NT) 1 Moreton Bay Regional Council (QLD) 146 Alpine Shire Council (VIC) 1 Logan City Council (QLD) 104 Armadale City Council (WA) 2 Sunshine Coast Regional Council (QLD) 50 Auburn City Council (NSW) 2 Ipswich City Council (QLD) 49 Ballarat City Council (VIC) 1 Redland City Council (QLD) 49 Ballina Shire Council (NSW) 1 Cairns Regional Council (QLD) 23 Balonne Shire Council (QLD) 1 Toowoomba Regional Council (QLD) 22 Bankstown City Council (NSW) 2 Fraser Coast Regional Council (QLD) 19 Bathurst Regional Council (NSW) 1 Lockyer Valley Regional Council (QLD) 10 Brisbane City Council (QLD) 241 Townsville City Council (QLD) 10 Bellingen Shire Council (NSW) 1 Mackay Regional Council (QLD) 9 Belmont City Council (WA) 3 Rockhampton Regional Council (QLD) 9 Bendigo City Council (VIC) 1 Whitsunday Regional Council (QLD) 8 Blacktown City Council (NSW) 5 Bundaberg Regional Council (QLD) 7 Blue Mountains City Council (NSW) 1 Casey City Council (VIC) 7 Boroondarra City Council (VIC) 1 Gladstone Regional Council (QLD) 7 Brimbank City Council (VIC) 2 Hume City Council (VIC) 7 Bundaberg Regional Council (QLD) 7 Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (VIC) 7 Burnside City Council (SA) 1 Tweed Shire Council (NSW) 7 Burwood Council (NSW) 1 Somerset Regional Council (QLD) 6 Busselton City Council (WA) 1 Tablelands Regional Council (QLD) 6 Byron Shire Council (NSW) 4 ACT (Canberra) 5 Cairns Regional Council (QLD) 23 Blacktown City Council (NSW) 5 Camden Council (NSW) 1 Charles Sturt City Council (SA) 5 Canning City Council (WA) 1 Frankston City Council (VIC) 5 Canterbury City Council (NSW) 2 Salisbury City Council (SA) 5 Cardinia Shire Council (VIC) 2 Scenic Rim Regional Council (QLD) 5 Casey City Council (VIC) 7 Wyndham City Council (VIC) 5 Ceduna District Council (SA) 1 Byron Shire Council (NSW) 4 Central Highlands Regional Council (QLD) 4 Central Highlands Regional Council (QLD) 4 Cessnock City Council (NSW) 2 Gosford City Council (NSW) 4 Charles Sturt City Council (SA) 5 Penrith City Council (NSW) 4 Charters Towers Regional Council (QLD) 1 Rockingham City Council (WA) 4
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 32
Chittering Shire Council (WA) 1 Sydney City Council (NSW) 4 City of Subiaco (WA) 1 Wyong Shire Council (NSW) 4 Claremont Town Council (WA) 1 Belmont City Council (WA) 3 Clarence Valley Council (NSW) 1 Gympie Regional Council (QLD) 3 Cockburn City Council (WA) 1 Kingston City Council (VIC) 3 Cootamundra Shire Council (NSW) 1 Knox City Council (VIC) 3 Copper Coast District Council (SA) 1 Playford City Council (SA) 3 Fairfield City Council (NSW) 1 Port Adelaide Enfield City Council (SA) 3 Frankston City Council (VIC) 5 Stirling City Council (WA) 3 Fraser Coast Regional Council (QLD) 19 Sutherland Shire Council (NSW) 3 Fremantle City Council (WA) 1 Yarra Ranges Shire Council (VIC) 3 Gannawarra Shire Council (VIC) 1 Armadale City Council (WA) 2 Gawler Town Council (SA) 2 Auburn City Council (NSW) 2 Gold Coast City Council (QLD) 164 Bankstown City Council (NSW) 2 Gladstone Regional Council (QLD) 7 Brimbank City Council (VIC) 2 Glen Eira City Council (VIC) 1 Canterbury City Council (NSW) 2 Golden Plains Shire Council (VIC) 1 Cardinia Shire Council (VIC) 2 Gosford City Council (NSW) 4 Cessnock City Council (NSW) 2 Gosnells City Council (WA) 1 Gawler Town Council (SA) 2 Great Lakes Council (NSW) 1 Greater Bendigo City Council (VIC) 2 Greater Bendigo City Council (VIC) 2 Greater Dandenong City Council (VIC) 2 Greater Dandenong City Council (VIC) 2 Greater Geelong City Council (VIC) 2 Greater Geelong City Council (VIC) 2 Lake Macquarie City Council (NSW) 2 Greater Geraldton City Council (WA) 1 Latrobe City Council (VIC) 2 Greater Shepparton City Council (VIC) 1 Maitland City Council (NSW) 2 Gympie Regional Council (QLD) 3 Maranoa Regional Council (QLD) 2 Hawkesbury City Council (NSW) 1 Melbourne City Council (VIC) 2 Hepburn Shire Council (VIC) 1 Mildura Rural City Council (VIC) 2 Hobsons Bay City Council (VIC) 1 Onkaparinga City Council (SA) 2 Holdfast Bay City Council (SA) 1 Parramatta City Council (NSW) 2 Hornsby Shire Council (NSW) 1 Perth City Council (WA) 2 Hume City Council (VIC) 7 Port Phillip City Council (VIC) 2 Ipswich City Council (QLD) 49 Queanbeyan City Council (NSW) 2 Isaac Regional Council (QLD) 1 Ryde City Council (NSW) 2 Joondalup City Council (WA) 1 Singleton Shire Council (NSW) 2 Kalamunda Shire Council (WA) 1 South Gippsland Shire Council (VIC) 2 Kempsey Shire Council (NSW) 1 Stonnington City Council (VIC) 2 Kingborough Municipal Council (TAS) 1 Tea Tree Gully City Council (SA) 2 Kingston City Council (VIC) 3 The Hills Shire Council (NSW) 2
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 33
Knox City Council (VIC) 3 Wagga Wagga City Council (NSW) 2 Lake Grace Shire Council (WA) 1 Western Downs Regional Council (QLD) 2 Lake Macquarie City Council (NSW) 2 Whitehorse City Council (VIC) 2 Latrobe City Council (VIC) 2 Wollongong City Council (NSW) 2 Lockyer Valley Regional Council (QLD) 10 Adelaide Hills Council (SA) 1 Logan City Council (QLD) 104 Alice Springs Town Council (NT) 1 Loxton Waikerie District Council (SA) 1 Alpine Shire Council (VIC) 1 Mackay Regional Council (QLD) 9 Ballarat City Council (VIC) 1 Maitland City Council (NSW) 2 Ballina Shire Council (NSW) 1 Mallala District Council (SA) 1 Balonne Shire Council (QLD) 1 Mandurah City Council (WA) 1 Bathurst Regional Council (NSW) 1 Maranoa Regional Council (QLD) 2 Bellingen Shire Council (NSW) 1 Maribyrnong City Council (VIC) 1 Bendigo City Council (VIC) 1 Maroondah City Council (VIC) 1 Blue Mountains City Council (NSW) 1 Marrickville Council (NSW) 1 Boroondarra City Council (VIC) 1 Melbourne City Council (VIC) 2 Burnside City Council (SA) 1 Melville City Council (WA) 1 Burwood Council (NSW) 1 Mid-Western Regional Council (NSW) 1 Busselton City Council (WA) 1 Mildura Rural City Council (VIC) 2 Camden Council (NSW) 1 Mitchell Shire Council (VIC) 1 Canning City Council (WA) 1 Moira Shire Council (VIC) 1 Ceduna District Council (SA) 1 Moonee Valley City Council (VIC) 1 Charters Towers Regional Council (QLD) 1 Moorabool Shire Council (VIC) 1 Chittering Shire Council (WA) 1 Moreton Bay Regional Council (QLD) 146 City of Subiaco (WA) 1 Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (VIC) 7 Claremont Town Council (WA) 1 Mount Isa City Council (QLD) 1 Clarence Valley Council (NSW) 1 Mundaring Shire Council (WA) 1 Cockburn City Council (WA) 1 Murrindindi Shire Council (VIC) 1 Cootamundra Shire Council (NSW) 1 Newcastle City Council (NSW) 1 Copper Coast District Council (SA) 1 North Burnett Regional Council (QLD) 1 Fairfield City Council (NSW) 1 Northampton Shire Council (WA) 1 Fremantle City Council (WA) 1 Onkaparinga City Council (SA) 2 Gannawarra Shire Council (VIC) 1 Parramatta City Council (NSW) 2 Glen Eira City Council (VIC) 1 Penrith City Council (NSW) 4 Golden Plains Shire Council (VIC) 1 Perth City Council (WA) 2 Gosnells City Council (WA) 1 Pittwater Council (NSW) 1 Great Lakes Council (NSW) 1 Playford City Council (SA) 3 Greater Geraldton City Council (WA) 1 Port Adelaide Enfield City Council (SA) 3 Greater Shepparton City Council (VIC) 1 Port Phillip City Council (VIC) 2 Hawkesbury City Council (NSW) 1
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 34
Port Stephens Council (NSW) 1 Hepburn Shire Council (VIC) 1 Queanbeyan City Council (NSW) 2 Hobsons Bay City Council (VIC) 1 Randwick City Council (NSW) 1 Holdfast Bay City Council (SA) 1 Redland City Council (QLD) 49 Hornsby Shire Council (NSW) 1 Richmond Shire Council (QLD) 1 Isaac Regional Council (QLD) 1 Richmond Valley Council (NSW) 1 Joondalup City Council (WA) 1 Rockdale City Council (NSW) 1 Kalamunda Shire Council (WA) 1 Rockhampton Regional Council (QLD) 9 Kempsey Shire Council (NSW) 1 Rockingham City Council (WA) 4 Kingborough Municipal Council (TAS) 1 Ryde City Council (NSW) 2 Lake Grace Shire Council (WA) 1 Salisbury City Council (SA) 5 Loxton Waikerie District Council (SA) 1 Scenic Rim Regional Council (QLD) 5 Mallala District Council (SA) 1 Shoalhaven City Council (NSW) 1 Mandurah City Council (WA) 1 Singleton Shire Council (NSW) 2 Maribyrnong City Council (VIC) 1 Somerset Regional Council (QLD) 6 Maroondah City Council (VIC) 1 South Burnett Regional Council (QLD) 1 Marrickville Council (NSW) 1 South Gippsland Shire Council (VIC) 2 Melville City Council (WA) 1 South Perth City Council (WA) 1 Mid-Western Regional Council (NSW) 1 Southern Downs Regional Council (QLD) 1 Mitchell Shire Council (VIC) 1 Stirling City Council (WA) 3 Moira Shire Council (VIC) 1 Stonnington City Council (VIC) 2 Moonee Valley City Council (VIC) 1 Strathfield Municipal Council (NSW) 1 Moorabool Shire Council (VIC) 1 Sunshine Coast Regional Council (QLD) 50 Mount Isa City Council (QLD) 1 Sutherland Shire Council (NSW) 3 Mundaring Shire Council (WA) 1 Swan City Council (WA) 1 Murrindindi Shire Council (VIC) 1 Sydney City Council (NSW) 4 Newcastle City Council (NSW) 1 Tablelands Regional Council (QLD) 6 North Burnett Regional Council (QLD) 1 Tamworth Regional Council (NSW) 1 Northampton Shire Council (WA) 1 Tea Tree Gully City Council (SA) 2 Pittwater Council (NSW) 1 The Hills Shire Council (NSW) 2 Port Stephens Council (NSW) 1 Toowoomba Regional Council (QLD) 22 Randwick City Council (NSW) 1 Townsville City Council (QLD) 10 Richmond Shire Council (QLD) 1 Tweed Shire Council (NSW) 7 Richmond Valley Council (NSW) 1 Victor Harbour City Council (SA) 1 Rockdale City Council (NSW) 1 Victoria Daly Shire Council (NT) 1 Shoalhaven City Council (NSW) 1 Victoria Park Town Council (WA) 1 South Burnett Regional Council (QLD) 1 Wagga Wagga City Council (NSW) 2 South Perth City Council (WA) 1 Walkerville Council (SA) 1 Southern Downs Regional Council (QLD) 1 Warringah Council (NSW) 1 Strathfield Municipal Council (NSW) 1
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 35
Western Downs Regional Council (QLD) 2 Swan City Council (WA) 1 Whitehorse City Council (VIC) 2 Tamworth Regional Council (NSW) 1 Whitsunday Regional Council (QLD) 8 Victor Harbour City Council (SA) 1 Willoughby City Council (NSW) 1 Victoria Daly Shire Council (NT) 1 Wingecarribee Shire Council (NSW) 1 Victoria Park Town Council (WA) 1 Wollongong City Council (NSW) 2 Walkerville Council (SA) 1 Wyndham City Council (VIC) 5 Warringah Council (NSW) 1 Wyong Shire Council (NSW) 4 Willoughby City Council (NSW) 1 Yarra City Council (VIC) 1 Wingecarribee Shire Council (NSW) 1 Yarra Ranges Shire Council (VIC) 3 Yarra City Council (VIC) 1 Total 1205 Total 1205 *note - 14 not given
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 36
Appendix C
Dog Breeds
A comprehensive list of dog breed types was provided in the survey. However, a few dog breeds were not listed and respondents were able to select the “other” breed option to answer this question.
Some respondents also selected the “other” breed option due to their dog being a mixed breed. It was anticipated that respondents would identify the dominant breed and click on that however this does not seem to have been made clear enough in the question asked. Where this has occurred, we have taken the first breed mentioned in the “cross” for example the following five responses were allocated these dog breeds:
“Jack Russell cross pug” we have treated as Jack Russell “American Staffy/English Staffy” we have treated as American Staffordshire Bull Terrier “LabXkelpieXboardercollieXstaffie” we have treated as Labrador Retriever “Sheppard/rottie” we have treated as German Shepherd Dog “Cattle x staffy” we have treated as Australian Cattle Dog
In other responses, where respondents have responded “other” we have treated the following difficult to tell breeds in the following way:
“Pit Bull” we have treated as American Pitt Bull Terrier (APBT) although the term is also sometimes used as a generic term for some bull breeds e.g. Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier; American Staffordshire Terrier. “Staffy” we have treated as Staffordshire Bull Terrier “Bully mix” we have treated as Bull Terrier Where “other” has been ticked and no breed typed in or where respondents have typed “not known”, “bits of everything”, etc. we have marked as “Not given”. Where a respondent has identified their mixed breed as a breed, we have included that breed and not the dominant mix e.g. “Jack Russell cross pug” (Jack Russell); “jug - pug x jack Russell” (Jug).
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 37
Number of Dogs by Breed
Alphabetical order Most popular Breed No. Breed No. Affenpinscher 2 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 347 Afghan Hound 3 American Staffordshire Terrier 118 Airedale Terrier 2 Labrador Retriever 85 Alaskan Malamute 20 Border Collie 74 American Bandogge 2 Maltese 73 American Bulldog 9 German Shepherd Dog 71 American Cocker Spaniel 2 Australian Cattle Dog 67 American Staffordshire Terrier 118 Bull Terrier 63 Anatolian Shepherd Dog 1 Australian Kelpie 55 American Pit Bull Terrier 7 Rottweiler 55 Australian Bulldog 2 Boxer 50 Australian Bulldog Miniature 1 Great Dane 41 Australian Cattle Dog 67 Shih Tzu 39 Australian Kelpie 55 Mastiff (unspecified) 35 Australian Shepherd Dog 5 Fox Terrier Smooth Coat 33 Australian Silky Terrier 8 Rhodesian Ridgeback 32 Australian Terrier 5 Jack Russell 31 Basenji 1 Chihuahua 29 Basset Hound 1 Beagle 28 Beagle 28 Bull Arab 28 Bearded Collie 3 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 28 Bedlington Terrier 1 Bullmastiff 26 Belgian Shepherd Dog Groenendael 4 Siberian Husky 24 Belgian Shepherd Dog Malinois 1 Golden Retriever 23 Bernese Mountain Dog 1 Poodle Toy 23 Bichon Frise 12 Shar Pei 23 Bloodhound 1 Pomeranian 22 Blue Heeler 2 Chihuahua (Smooth Coat) 21 Boerboel 1 Pug 21 Border Collie 74 Alaskan Malamute 20 Border Terrier 1 Dachshund (Miniature Smooth) 19 Boston Terrier 3 Bulldog 17 Boxer 50 Greyhound 14 Bull Arab 28 Dobermann 13 Bull Terrier 63 Fox Terrier Minature 13
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 38
Bull Terrier Miniature 5 Bichon Frise 12 Bulldog 17 English Cocker Spaniel 12 Bullmastiff 26 Parson Jack Russell Terrier 12 Cairn Terrier 1 Cavoodle 11 Cane Corso 3 Tibetan Spaniel 10 Catahoula Leopard Dog 1 Whippet 10 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 28 American Bulldog 9 Cavoodle 11 Irish Wolfhound 9 Chihuahua 29 Poodle Miniature 9 Chihuahua (Long Coat) 3 Poodle Standard 9 Chihuahua (Smooth Coat) 21 Australian Silky Terrier 8 Chihuahua (Unspecified Coat) 4 Dalmatian 8 Chinese Crested 1 French Bulldog 8 Chow Chow (Smooth) 6 Schnauzer Miniature 8 Clumber Spaniel 1 Tenterfield Terrier 8 Cocker Spaniel 6 American Pit Bull Terrier 7 Collie (Rough) 2 Maremma Sheepdog 7 Dachshund (Miniature Long Haired) 2 Chow Chow (Smooth) 6 Dachshund (Miniature Smooth) 19 Cocker Spaniel 6 Dachshund (Miniature Wire Haired) 1 Fox Terrier 6 Dachshund (Smooth Haired) 5 Australian Shepherd Dog 5 Dalmatian 8 Australian Terrier 5 Dobermann 13 Bull Terrier Miniature 5 Dogue de Bordeaux 5 Dachshund (Smooth Haired) 5 English Cocker Spaniel 12 Dogue de Bordeaux 5 English Mastiff 1 Shetland Sheepdog 5 English Springer Spaniel 2 Terrier (unspecified) 5 English Toy Terrier 1 West Highland White Terrier 5 Fila Brasileiro 1 Yorkshire Terrier 5 Finnish Lapphund 1 Belgian Shepherd Dog Groenendael 4 Flat-Coated Retriever 1 Chihuahua (Unspecified Coat) 4 Fox Terrier 6 Hungarian Vizsla 4 Fox Terrier Minature 13 Japanese Spitz 4 Fox Terrier Smooth Coat 33 Lhasa Apso 4 Fox Terrier Wire Coat 2 Moodle 4 Foxhound 1 Newfoundland 4 French Bulldog 8 Afghan Hound 3 German Pinscher 2 Bearded Collie 3 German Shepherd Dog 71 Boston Terrier 3
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 39
German Short-Haired Pointer 2 Cane Corso 3 German Spitz Klein 1 Chihuahua (Long Coat) 3 Golden Retriever 23 Leonberger 3 Great Dane 41 Silky Terrier 3 Greyhound 14 White Swiss Shepherd 3 Groodle 1 Affenpinscher 2 Harrier Hound 1 Airedale Terrier 2 Hungarian Vizsla 4 American Bandogge 2 Irish Terrier 2 American Cocker Spaniel 2 Irish Wolfhound 9 Australian Bulldog 2 Italian Greyhound 2 Blue Heeler 2 Jack Russell 31 Collie (Rough) 2 Japanese Akita 2 Dachshund (Miniature Long Haired) 2 Japanese Spitz 4 English Springer Spaniel 2 Jug 2 Fox Terrier Wire Coat 2 Kangal 1 German Pinscher 2 Keeshond 2 German Short-Haired Pointer 2 Labradoodle 2 Irish Terrier 2 Labrador Retriever 85 Italian Greyhound 2 Lagotto Romagnolo 1 Japanese Akita 2 Leonberger 3 Jug 2 Lhasa Apso 4 Keeshond 2 Maltese 73 Labradoodle 2 Maltese Bichon Frise 1 Maltese Poodle 2 Maltese Poodle 2 Neopolitan Mastiff 2 Maltese Shih Tzu 1 Papillon 2 Maremma Sheepdog 7 Saluki 2 Mastiff (unspecified) 35 Schnauzer Standard 2 Moodle 4 Scottish Terrier 2 Neopolitan Mastiff 2 Spoodle 2 New Zealand Huntaway 1 Welsh Corgi (Pembroke) 2 Newfoundland 4 Anatolian Shepherd Dog 1 Norwegian Elkhound 1 Australian Bulldog Miniature 1 Papillon 2 Basenji 1 Parson Jack Russell Terrier 12 Basset Hound 1 Pinscher-Miniature 1 Bedlington Terrier 1 Pointer (unspecified) 1 Belgian Shepherd Dog Malinois 1 Pomeranian 22 Bernese Mountain Dog 1 Poodle Miniature 9 Bloodhound 1
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 40
Poodle Standard 9 Boerboel 1 Poodle Toy 23 Border Terrier 1 Pug 21 Cairn Terrier 1 Rhodesian Ridgeback 32 Catahoula Leopard Dog 1 Rottweiler 55 Chinese Crested 1 Saluki 2 Clumber Spaniel 1 Schnauzer Miniature 8 Dachshund (Miniature Wire Haired) 1 Schnauzer Standard 2 English Mastiff 1 Scottish Terrier 2 English Toy Terrier 1 Shar Pei 23 Fila Brasileiro 1 Shetland Sheepdog 5 Finnish Lapphund 1 Shiba Inu 1 Flat-Coated Retriever 1 Shih Tzu 39 Foxhound 1 Shoodle 1 German Spitz Klein 1 Siberian Husky 24 Groodle 1 Silky Terrier 3 Harrier Hound 1 Spoodle 2 Kangal 1 Springer Spaniel 1 Lagotto Romagnolo 1 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 347 Maltese Bichon Frise 1 Staghound 1 Maltese Shih Tzu 1 Tenterfield Terrier 8 New Zealand Huntaway 1 Terrier (unspecified) 5 Norwegian Elkhound 1 Tibetan Spaniel 10 Pinscher-Miniature 1 Tibetan Terrier 1 Pointer (unspecified) 1 Weimaraner 1 Shiba Inu 1 Welsh Corgi (Pembroke) 2 Shoodle 1 West Highland White Terrier 5 Springer Spaniel 1 Whippet 10 Staghound 1 White Swiss Shepherd 3 Tibetan Terrier 1 Wolfhound 1 Weimaraner 1 Yorkshire Terrier 5 Wolfhound 1 Total 2024 Total 2024 *note – 49 not given
National Dog Theft Survey August 2015 www.projectpaws.org.au 41